Broker liability · Case tracker
Freight Broker Liability Case Tracker
Court decisions shaping carrier selection, negligent-selection liability, and broker responsibility.
LAST UPDATED · SEP 15, 2026
Courts have not given freight brokers a carrier-vetting checklist. But each decision adds another piece to the picture of what brokers may be expected to know, evaluate, document, and respond to. This page tracks the significant U.S. decisions and litigation developments, keeps each case's status current, and separates three things that industry coverage often blurs: what a court actually held, what plaintiffs alleged, and what we think the cases imply for broker operations. It is an informational reference, not legal advice.
What the cases are telling brokers so far
- Broker negligent-selection claims can proceed. In Montgomery, the Supreme Court unanimously held that federal preemption is not a categorical defense to state-law claims that a broker negligently selected an unsafe carrier.
- That holding applies nationwide. A Supreme Court holding binds every circuit on its own force. Twelve days after Montgomery, the Court also declined to review Cox v. Total Quality Logistics — an early sign of how quickly the question closed. Within weeks, federal appellate courts in the Fourth Circuit (Fuelling v. Echo Global Logistics) and Eleventh Circuit (Hodge v. Molson Coors / Coyote Logistics) vacated pre-Montgomery broker dismissals and sent negligent-selection claims back for further proceedings — neither court deciding the broker was negligent, only that the preemption exit was gone.
- Montgomery opens the courthouse door; it does not establish broker negligence. In Miller v. Agramon, a Colorado federal judge recognized that Montgomery had removed TQL's preemption defense and dismissed the claims against TQL anyway — the complaint pleaded only generic "defendants" allegations and never established the principal-agent relationship its negligence theories required. The dismissal was without prejudice, but it shows removing the preemption shield still leaves plaintiffs to prove every element of a state-law claim.
- Not every claim against a broker survives. Montgomery turns on the FAAAA's motor-vehicle safety exception. State-law claims tied to a broker's prices, routes, or services that are unrelated to safety remain preempted.
- A "Satisfactory" rating may not by itself end the safety inquiry. In Lipe, the carrier held a Satisfactory FMCSA rating, and a jury still returned a $604 million advisory verdict after hearing evidence about safety-measurement signals behind the rating.
- Who actually hauled the load — and what the broker knew about subcontracting — matters. Crane involves freight that passed through a chain of hands before reaching the truck that crashed. In Hardy, a federal judge found evidence enough for a jury to weigh whether a broker was negligent for continuing to use a carrier it knew was handing loads off without broker authority. And Crane and Lipe show vicarious-liability theories (statutory employer, borrowed employee) advancing alongside negligent selection. Together, the cases put the vetted-carrier / actual-carrier gap squarely in the liability discussion.
- No court has prescribed a checklist or a refresh interval. What a broker can control is a written selection policy, consistently applied, with a preserved record of each decision — which is also the evidence these cases turn on.
Cases at a glance
| Case | Court · Date | Status | Why brokers should care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miller v. C.H. Robinson | 9th Cir. · Sep 2020 | REPORTED SETTLED | First appellate decision letting a negligent-selection claim past preemption. |
| Ye v. GlobalTranz | 7th Cir. · Jul 2023 | ABROGATED | The high-water mark of the preemption defense — no longer good law. |
| Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II | U.S. Supreme Court · May 14, 2026 | REMANDED | Ended preemption as an automatic shield. The foundational decision. |
| Cox v. Total Quality Logistics | Cert denied · May 26, 2026 | CERT DENIED | The preemption question closed quickly after Montgomery. |
| Lipe v. Lupus Superior | Dallas County, Tex. · Jul 23, 2026 | VERDICT · POST-TRIAL | $604M advisory verdict against a broker despite the carrier's Satisfactory rating. |
| Crane v. Penske Trans. Mgmt. | 5th Cir. · Aug 4, 2026 | REMANDED | Montgomery is already reviving dismissed broker claims; subcontracting chains are in focus. |
| Hardy v. Singh | D. Nev. · Aug 11, 2026 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED | Evidence that a broker knew its carrier subcontracted loads without broker authority was enough to keep a negligence claim alive. |
| Miller v. Agramon | D. Colo. · Sep 8, 2026 | DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE | First notable post-Montgomery broker win: losing the preemption defense did not relieve the plaintiff of pleading the elements of a state-law claim. |
How the law got here
- SEP 2020Miller — Ninth Circuit lets a negligent-selection claim past FAAAA preemption.
- 2023Ye (7th Cir.) and Aspen v. Landstar (11th Cir.) go the other way. A circuit split hardens.
- 2025Cox (6th Cir.) sides with Miller. In October, a Florida appellate court breaks with the federal preemption line in Simon v. Coyote Logistics, and the Supreme Court grants review in Montgomery.
- MAR 4, 2026Montgomery argued at the Supreme Court.
- MAY 14, 2026Montgomery decided, 9–0: negligent-selection claims are not categorically preempted.
- MAY 26, 2026Cert denied in Cox — the question is settled nationwide.
- MAY–JUN 2026Fuelling (4th Cir., May 18) and Hodge (11th Cir., Jun 11) — appellate courts vacate pre-Montgomery broker dismissals and remand negligent-selection claims.
- JUL 23, 2026Lipe — Dallas County jury returns a $604M advisory verdict that includes a broker.
- AUG 4, 2026Crane — Fifth Circuit revives claims against Penske entities, citing Montgomery.
- AUG 11, 2026Hardy — Nevada federal court sends a double-brokering negligence claim toward trial.
- SEP 8, 2026Miller v. Agramon — Colorado federal court dismisses the claims against TQL despite acknowledging Montgomery removed the broker's preemption defense; dismissal without prejudice.
Case-by-case analysis
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
The issue. Whether the FAAAA — the federal statute preempting state laws related to a broker's prices, routes, or services — categorically blocks state-law claims that a broker negligently selected an unsafe motor carrier.
What happened. Shawn Montgomery suffered catastrophic injuries when a truck operated by Caribe Transport II struck his parked tractor-trailer on an Illinois highway. C.H. Robinson had arranged the shipment as broker. The district court dismissed the negligent-selection claim as preempted under Seventh Circuit precedent, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Other circuits had allowed similar claims, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve the split.
Unanimously (Barrett, J.; Kavanaugh, J., concurring, joined by Alito, J.): the FAAAA's safety exception — preserving state safety regulatory authority "with respect to motor vehicles" — covers a negligent-selection claim against a broker. Requiring ordinary care in selecting a carrier concerns the trucks that end up on the highway. The claim is not preempted.
The Court did not decide whether C.H. Robinson was negligent, and it did not create a carrier-vetting checklist. The case was remanded; the duty of care comes from state negligence law, case by case.
That the carrier held a Conditional safety rating with documented deficiencies in driver qualification, hours-of-service compliance, inspection and maintenance, and crash history — and that the broker knew or should have known selecting it was unreasonably dangerous.
A broker should be prepared to show that selection involved more than confirming authority and insurance. Check: safety rating, visible safety history, authority, insurance, carrier identity. When: at qualification, refreshed so it is reasonably current at selection. Document: sources consulted, findings, concerns and their disposition, reviewer, and the basis for approval.
- Opinion of the Court (PDF) — supremecourt.gov
- Docket and history — SCOTUSblog
- Deeper analysis: What the Montgomery decision means for freight brokers
LAST REVIEWED AUG 18, 2026
Lipe v. Lupus Superior, LLC, et al.
The issue. The first major trial outcome against a freight broker after Montgomery: whether a broker was negligent in hiring a carrier, and whether the carrier's driver could be treated as effectively working for the broker.
What happened. In March 2021, a tractor-trailer operated by carrier Lupus Superior ran into stopped traffic on Interstate 20 in Mississippi, triggering a multi-vehicle fire. Three people died, including the driver; two others were seriously injured. C.H. Robinson had brokered the load. In July 2026, a Dallas County jury returned a $604 million compensatory verdict against the driver, the carrier, and the broker.
Negligence by all three defendants, allocated 45% to the driver, 32% to Lupus Superior, and 23% to C.H. Robinson — plus a finding of negligent hiring and a "borrowed employee" vicarious-liability finding that, per the company's securities filings, could expose the broker to the full award despite its 23% share. The verdict is advisory and remains subject to post-trial proceedings; C.H. Robinson has said it will appeal a final judgment. A verdict is not a final adjudication of liability.
Plaintiffs pointed to safety-measurement signals — reported as Unsafe Driving and Hours-of-Service Compliance intervention indicators — sitting behind the carrier's federal rating.
The broker's stated defense: the carrier held a Satisfactory FMCSA rating (which remained Satisfactory after a federal review of the accident), was federally authorized, and had delivered roughly 270 prior loads for the company without incident.
A favorable federal rating is a data point, not a conclusion — a jury was willing to look behind it. And a broker's own history with a carrier cuts both ways: it is defense evidence when documented, and discovery material either way. Check: the safety-measurement picture behind the rating, not just the rating. When: qualification and refresh — signals move between loads. Document: what the signals showed at selection, how concerns were weighed, and why the carrier was approved for this load. Degree of control over the carrier's operations is a separate exposure worth discussing with counsel.
- Verdict, allocation, and theories — FreightWaves
- Advisory status per the company's Form 8-K — Logistics Management
- Planned appeal — Transport Topics
LAST REVIEWED AUG 18, 2026
Crane v. Penske Transportation Management, LLC
The issue. Whether claims against a broker and an affiliated carrier — both previously dismissed on summary judgment — could proceed after Montgomery, in a case where the freight changed hands several times before the crash.
What happened. A December 2018 Texas crash killed Lydon Dean Meyer when a truck jackknifed across the road. The freight had traveled through a chain: the shipper hired Penske Logistics, which used affiliate broker Penske Transportation Management (PTM); PTM engaged carrier Liberty Lane, which subcontracted to OK Trans, whose driver was behind the wheel. The district court had dismissed PTM on FAAAA preemption and Penske Logistics on the ground that it wasn't the driver's statutory employer.
Both summary judgments reversed. The broker's preemption dismissal could not stand after Montgomery. And treating Penske Logistics as a motor carrier that assumed control and responsibility for the equipment, the court held it could be the driver's statutory employer — even absent a direct arrangement with the subcontracted carrier — leaving vicarious liability to be litigated. The court did not decide that either defendant is liable; the case was remanded.
A difference between the carrier vetted and the carrier actually hauling the load can create additional exposure. Subcontracting chains can introduce both safety concerns and liability theories that reach up the chain. Operational implication: have a policy addressing unauthorized rebrokering or carrier substitution, and preserve known evidence when it comes to light. This is not a suggestion that verifying the physical hauling authority on every load is an established requirement — no court has held that.
- Opinion, No. 25-40012 (5th Cir. Aug 4, 2026) — Justia
- Decision analysis — FreightWaves
LAST REVIEWED AUG 18, 2026
Hardy v. Singh, et al.
The issue. Whether a broker could be negligent for continuing to tender freight to a carrier it knew had been subcontracting loads despite lacking broker authority — where the load ended up hauled by a different carrier whose driver caused a fatal crash.
What happened. AONE Brokerage booked a load of hay and tendered it to Lucky Transport. Lucky did not haul it; the load went to GRK Transport, whose owner, Bhupinder Singh, was driving when the truck skidded on a Nevada two-lane highway in July 2022 and struck an oncoming pickup, killing one occupant and injuring another. Both sides moved for summary judgment; on August 11, 2026, Judge Anne Traum denied the cross-motions, keeping the negligence claims headed toward trial.
The court did not find AONE negligent — it held that a jury could. The record, as the court described it, included evidence that AONE kept doing business with Lucky knowing Lucky was subcontracting loads, that federal regulations barred Lucky from brokering without a license, and that the alleged breach could be the legal cause of the injuries. The court rejected, at this stage, AONE's argument that Lucky's and the driver's intervening acts cut off causation as a matter of law, observing that "illegal double brokering can put more high-risk drivers on the road."
An important limit: the court did not hold that using a carrier that sometimes subcontracts is automatically negligence, and it prescribed no double-brokering detection procedure. This is a district-court ruling that binds no other court; it held only that the evidence was sufficient for the claim to survive summary judgment.
A broker's responsibility may not end with approving the carrier named on the rate confirmation. What you already know about a carrier's tendency to hand freight off can itself become part of the selection record. Consider: prior indications that a carrier subcontracts or double-brokers, weighed as part of the selection decision, and a policy for responding when unauthorized substitution comes to light. Document: what was known about the carrier's subcontracting history, and how any discrepancy that surfaced was resolved. As with Crane, no court has held that verifying the physical hauling authority on every load is required.
- Order denying cross-motions for summary judgment, Hardy v. Bhupinder Singh, et al., No. 3:23-cv-00207 (D. Nev. Aug. 11, 2026) — court docket via Justia (order available via PACER)
- Decision coverage and the court's reasoning — FreightWaves
LAST REVIEWED AUG 24, 2026
Miller v. Agramon, et al.
The issue. Whether a negligent-selection complaint against a broker survives a motion to dismiss once Montgomery has taken the preemption defense off the table — that is, whether the plaintiff actually pleaded the state-law elements the claim requires.
What happened. Deann Miller sued much of the supply chain after a fatal Colorado crash in which steel came off a truck, adding broker TQL and two steel customers to an amended complaint alongside the driver and carrier Monique Trucking. TQL had asserted FAAAA preemption, then withdrew it after Montgomery. On September 8, 2026, Judge Nina Wang dismissed the claims against TQL (and the two customers) — without prejudice, so the plaintiff may try to replead. (This is the same broker whose cert petition the Supreme Court declined in Cox — a reminder that losing the preemption argument in one case and defeating a poorly pleaded one in another are not in tension.)
The court dismissed on the pleadings, not on preemption — it acknowledged that Montgomery had abrogated the old preemption defense. The negligence theories failed because the complaint did not plead TQL-specific facts: it relied on generic references to "defendants" and never established a principal-agent relationship between TQL and either the driver or Monique Trucking, which the vicarious-liability and negligent-hiring theories required. A negligent-undertaking theory failed too, because the complaint did not identify a particular safety duty TQL had affirmatively taken on.
What this did not establish: any safe harbor for brokers. This is a district-court ruling at the pleading stage under Colorado law, and the dismissal was without prejudice. It decided that this complaint was inadequately pleaded — not that TQL's carrier selection was reasonable.
Montgomery lets brokers be sued; it does not make them liable. A plaintiff still has to prove duty, breach, causation, and the right relationship under state law — and here a broker prevailed at the threshold. That cuts both ways for operations: the same record that answers "how did you select this carrier, and can you prove it" is what turns a well-pleaded case into a defensible one. The defense is a documented, reasonable, consistently applied selection decision — not the hope that a claim never gets filed.
- Order granting the motions to dismiss, Miller v. Agramon, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00997 (D. Colo. Sep. 8, 2026) — court docket via Justia (order available via PACER)
- Decision coverage and the court's reasoning — FreightWaves
LAST REVIEWED SEP 15, 2026
Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc.
The issue. The same preemption question as Montgomery, reaching the Supreme Court from the circuit that had allowed negligent-hiring claims to proceed.
The Sixth Circuit had held the safety exception saves negligent-hiring claims against brokers. Twelve days after Montgomery, the Supreme Court declined to review, leaving that ruling intact. To be precise about what does the legal work here: it is Montgomery — which binds every circuit — that forecloses the categorical preemption defense nationwide. A cert denial sets no precedent and approves nothing, and the denial itself decides nothing about any broker's negligence.
- Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847 (6th Cir. 2025); cert. denied, No. 25-145 (U.S. May 26, 2026)
- Analysis of the denial's effect — Hinshaw & Culbertson
LAST REVIEWED AUG 18, 2026
Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
The issue. The first federal appellate test of whether the FAAAA's safety exception saves a negligent-selection claim against a broker.
What happened. A truck hauling a Robinson-brokered load crashed into Allen Miller's vehicle in wintry conditions, leaving him quadriplegic. He alleged the broker negligently selected the carrier.
The safety exception preserves the claim — a negligent-selection suit is an exercise of the state's safety regulatory authority with respect to motor vehicles. The Supreme Court declined review, and the case was later reported settled. Miller supplied the reasoning Montgomery ultimately adopted nationwide, and its discussion of publicly available safety data still shapes how plaintiffs frame what a broker "should have known."
- Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied (2022)
LAST REVIEWED AUG 18, 2026
Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc.
The issue. The same question, answered the other way: the Seventh Circuit held negligent-hiring claims against brokers were preempted, reading the safety exception not to reach them. The Eleventh Circuit reached a similar result in Aspen American Insurance v. Landstar Ranger (2023). Together these decisions made the preemption defense a reliable early exit for brokers in those circuits — and created the split Montgomery resolved.
No longer good law on this question. Montgomery rejected the categorical-preemption reading. Ye matters now mainly as history: it explains why so many pending cases were dismissed and are being revived.
- Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023); Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023)
LAST REVIEWED AUG 18, 2026
What the cases collectively suggest brokers should check
No court has ordered this list. It is what recurs across the holdings, allegations, and verdicts above — the information these cases examine when a selection is questioned.
| Carrier information | Why it appears relevant | Where it appears |
|---|---|---|
| Operating authority & insurance | Baseline legal eligibility — necessary, but rarely the whole inquiry | Multiple cases |
| FMCSA safety rating | An express safety indicator — a Conditional rating was central to Montgomery's allegations; a Satisfactory one did not end Lipe | Montgomery, Lipe |
| Safety-measurement signals behind the rating | Unsafe-driving and hours-of-service indicators were the evidence juries and plaintiffs reached for | Lipe, Montgomery |
| Inspection, maintenance & crash history | Alleged as what the broker should have seen | Montgomery, Miller |
| Driver qualification | Alleged deficiency in the foundational case | Montgomery |
| Known subcontracting / rebrokering behavior | Evidence that a carrier has previously handed loads to others can become relevant to the broker's selection decision | Hardy, Crane |
| Your own history with the carrier | Cited by the defense in Lipe (≈270 prior loads) — your internal record is evidence, whichever way it points | Lipe |
| Degree of control over the load | Borrowed-employee and statutory-employer findings turned on control, not paperwork labels | Lipe, Crane |
For the operational version of this list — grouped, with what to preserve — see what brokers should check before every load.
How current should the information be?
No court has established a universal schedule requiring carrier information to be refreshed every 24 hours, 30 days, or before every shipment. The recurring question is different: was the information reasonably current when the carrier was selected for this load — and can you show it? Our full treatment of cadence, from onboarding through post-commitment preservation, is here: how often should freight brokers recheck a carrier?
What the courts have not decided
- No universal carrier-vetting checklist.
- No mandated data sources or vendors.
- No prescribed refresh frequency.
- No ruling that any specific process avoids liability — reasonableness is decided case by case, under state law.
- And Lipe is not final: an advisory verdict subject to post-trial proceedings and appeal is a data point about juries, not settled law.
Cases we're watching
J.B. Hunt / Borderlanders — D. Ariz. J.B. Hunt has asked the court for summary judgment in a negligent-selection case arising from an October 2023 crash involving a carrier its brokerage arm engaged. Plaintiffs allege the broker ignored the carrier's history of safety-assessment alerts, crashes, and inspection violations, and that it held itself out to the shipper as the carrier; J.B. Hunt responds that it acted solely as a broker and that, under its carrier agreement, the carrier alone hired, supervised, and dispatched its driver. No court has ruled on any of this — these are allegations and defense arguments awaiting a decision on the pending motion. We are tracking it because a substantive ruling could help define how far a broker must look beyond federal operating status, and where the broker/carrier line sits when a shipper believes it hired the party in front of it.
Your written policy, applied to current facts on every load, with the decision sealed into a record you can produce years later — that is the operational answer to the questions these cases ask.
View a sample compliance record Watch the 60-second demoMethodology & sources
We track significant U.S. court decisions, orders, and litigation developments bearing on freight-broker negligent selection, carrier vetting, and related vicarious-liability theories. Case facts are drawn from court opinions and filings where available, and from named trade and legal press otherwise; every entry links or cites its sources. We keep three things visibly separate: holdings (what a court decided), allegations (claimed but not established), and implications (our operational reading, which is not law). Each entry carries a status badge and a last-reviewed date, and is updated in place as its case develops — corrections are noted in the update history below. This page is published by CarrierBasis, a carrier-vetting software product of NewWay Digital; that is a commercial interest you should weigh. Nothing here is legal advice. The tracker is researched and maintained by Wayne Kullman, founder of CarrierBasis — media and correction inquiries: contact@workanewway.com.
Update history
- SEP 15, 2026 — Added Miller v. Agramon (D. Colo., Sep 8) — the first notable post-Montgomery broker win — as a tracked case, with a new conclusion that Montgomery opens the courthouse door without establishing negligence, plus glance-table and timeline entries.
- AUG 26, 2026 — Added Fuelling (4th Cir.) and Hodge (11th Cir.) to the nationwide-reach conclusion and timeline as evidence that Montgomery is actively reopening broker dismissals across circuits; not added as separate case entries, since both are procedural remands rather than new guidance on carrier selection.
- AUG 24, 2026 — Added Hardy v. Singh (D. Nev. summary-judgment denial, Aug 11) as a tracked case; revised the carrier-identity conclusion and check-matrix row; added "Cases we're watching" with the pending J.B. Hunt / Borderlanders matter.
- AUG 18, 2026 — Tracker launched with Montgomery, Lipe, Crane, Cox, Miller, and Ye.